User talk:Aervanath/Archive 12

User:Kvasir/Fyksian nationality law

Please temporary restore the text or made it available via some other means so I can back up for other use while I am repealing the deletion of my sandbox pages. I am unable to view the cache to retrieve any text. Thank you. --Kvasir (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If the deletion review is unsuccessful then I will restore it for a period so that you can retrieve the pages. If the deletion review is successful then the closing admin will restore the pages anyway.--Aervanath (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Just that I don't know if the cache is time sensitive because that's the only page whose cache is missing. Not sure if it was completely gone.

Meanwhile I have my own sandbox where the deleted text can be moved to: User:Kvasir/Lab, or do I need to rename it "Sandbox"? Originally I thought there was little distinction between user page's subpages and "sandbox", which is where I thought the fyksland pages content had been in -- the sandbox area. See my suggestion to move the deleted pages to the appropriate sandbox area in the deletion review discussion. --Kvasir (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no technical difference between a user subpage and user sandbox; a sandbox is just a kind of subpage. I will copy the text of the page you asked for to User:Kvasir/Lab, where you can retrieve it. After that, you can remove it again.--Aervanath (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Kvasir (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've now reverted that, so it's not on the page anymore, but the text is still available to you in the history. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ducati move decision

I'm puzzled by your "no consensus" decision with regard to the Ducati Motor Holding → Ducati move request, especially in light of what you recently wrote at WT:RM with regard to how you make move decisions.

Here is what you wrote:

I pretty much agree with Parsecboy; ... First, I read the discussion, trying to ignore the various bolded "support"/"oppose" votes and focus on the actual arguments. Once I've finished reading the discussion, I make a tentative decision based on my impression of consensus. Once I've got that in mind, then I go back and look at the numbers. If they reflect the same impression I've already formed, then my decision's done. If the numbers are close, or are weighted in the opposite direction from the consensus, then I have to re-read the discussion and determine exactly how to weight the arguments versus the numbers.

You said you "pretty much agree with Parsecboy", and his key point, arguably, was:

Arguments need to be based in policy and guidelines for them to carry any weight.

In this particular discussion, there were seven votes, four in favor, and three opposed. Each of the four in favor explicitly or implicitly were based in policy and guidelines, or endorsed such an argument. None of the three opposed votes even referred or implied any kind of basis in policy or guidlines, as far as I could tell.

The first oppose vote simply said, "the company should be under the actual name of the company, not the shorthand name for it". There was no explanation given for this, even though I explicitly asked about that. That's not even an argument, much less one based in policy or guidelines.

The second oppose vote argued that "use the most recognized English name" should not apply, because of a company split in the early 50s, involving what is now the well-known Ducati (the topic of the article in question) and a virtually obscure one. This argument was presented as if the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC concept did not exist. When this was pointed out, common sense was invoked, without explanation. This too is hardly even an argument, and certainly not one based in WP policy or guidelines.

The third oppose was similar to the first, calling for use of "the correct name", with the only explanation being that some other company names are not at their most commonly known names (without exploring why that might be in those particular cases). Again, nothing about policy or guidelines.

That's it on the oppose side, essentially three WP:ILIKEIT votes, while, again, the four support votes were clearly based in policy and guidelines. I mean, that's why I even made this proposal in the first place.

So, I don't see how you could have followed what you said you did above, following the actual arguments, and ending up with the impression that there was no consensus. The oppose side effectively conceded that there was no basis in policy or guidelines to keep the article at it's current name. That was not only consensus, but arguably unanimous (explicit on the support side, implicit on the oppose side).

Anyway, this particular instance is not that big of a deal, but I do want to understand how decisions like this are made, for future reference if nothing else, because it makes no sense to me. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Born2cycle. :) I agree that the first and third !votes against the move were not very strong. However, the second !vote (while not argued very well), was essentially arguing that neither of the Ducati's was the primary topic. While the editors supporting the move were clearly of the opinion that was the clear primary topic. and also that Ducati was the WP:COMMONNAME of the company, the opinions weren't supported by any evidence, only bare allegations. In the case where two subjects share the same common name, we have to consider which one is the primary topic, and I saw no strong evidence as to which one it was, so I couldn't close it in favor of the move. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey man, you thought the 2nd oppose was arguing that neither Ducati was the primary topic? really? You're right about one thing... it wasn't argued very well. It wasn't argued at all. As soon as just two basic points were pointed out -- the redirect from Ducati and the absence of even a hatnote to the other use -- that argument was simply dropped, and rightfully so.

Did you even look at the other article, Ducati Energia? It has had a total of five edits, the most recent two years ago, has one incoming link (while this Ducati has hundreds of incoming links), and, frankly, due to its lack of content, is probably a good candidate for deletion. If it had occurred to me that the closing admin might consider primary topic to even be an issue here -- even though none of the oppose votes argued that -- I would have addressed that. Ducati motorcycles are sold and raced throughout the English speaking world. Ducati Energia is an Italian wholesale manufacturer that is virtually unknown in the English world. If this is not a clear case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I don't know what is.

In any case, I still don't see how a mere mention of an obscure other use of the name in question, qualified by how that other use might become significant sometime in the future, amounts to a lack of consensus that the topic of that article is not primary use of that name. Perhaps this decision was made a bit too hastily for some reason without your usual application of due diligence? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I looked and saw that Ducati had been a redirect to the motorcycle company since 2002, which pretty much tanked the idea that there was any doubt about the primary topic, so I went ahead and altered my decision. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What you've done is not OK, but I"d rather be writing articles than continuing to fight about it.--Dbratland (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force

I saw you closed this discussion, related to a heated debate over how best to deal with a lot of trivial stubs describing relations between pairs of countries. I have been merging a lot of these "Country X-Y relations" stubs into "Foreign relations of Country X" articles. See Foreign relations of Belgium#Bilateral relationships for an example. The content is preserved, and if any editor wants to expand on the subject they can without facing a forbidding notice saying "you are trying to recreate an article that was deleted". I think that by always merging to "Foreign relations of ..." article for the first country named I am avoiding bias, and by turning the original stub into a redirect I am avoiding any copyright issues - the history is preserved. But I do feel a bit uneasy about massive merging of a whole class of articles. Any thoughts or advice? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're ok with what you've been doing. If other editors want to remove the redirect, then they can take it to WP:RFD; if it's deleted, then the history should be moved to a subpage of the target's talk page, as per the discussion. However, if no one wants to delete the article/redirect, then there's no conflict.--Aervanath (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - that is reassuring. I will keep plugging away. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

• Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
• News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Delta Phi Upsilon Fraternity, Inc.

Hi,

sorry to bother you, but the wikipedia link states that you deleted the Delta Phi Upsilon entry because of copyright infringement. however, i am authorized by my brotherhood to use the information. actually, most of the information listed is also in our brochure. what should my next steps be? dmccarthy@dphiuboston.org

Hi, there are three routes you can take. The easiest one would be to rewrite the article in your own words. The same information would be present in the article, but the wording and the order would be different. This would solve the problem without having to get anyone's permission registered anywhere. Just try not to paraphrase too closely.

Another route would be to get the fraternity to add a copyright tag to its website noting that the text is either released into the public domain, or released under a free license, ideally the GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses.

Or, you can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#How_to_ask_for_permission, which tell you how to file an OTRS ticket to verify your permission to use the text.

You should also read WP:Copyrights and WP:FAQ/Copyright to get an idea of general Wikipedia policy with regard to copyrighted material. I hope I've helped. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)

You just protected the page including the incorrect and unsupported edits by Debresser (talk · contribs) and Kotniski (talk · contribs). Please revert the page to its state before the edit war begun by them, in accord with WP:BRD.

Debresser's objection to this language appears to be personally motivated, demonstrated by his objection to its citation by the distinguished long-time editor at CfD, Kbdank71.
-- watching here --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your action here. All of the users are identifiable and can simply be blocked; e.g. the user above has been blocked already for his action on the page in question and I declined to unblock. Extended blocks, not protection, are in order.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) To William Allen Simpson: Normally I would not alter the page, as per WP:PREFER: "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version..." However, it does go on to say that:

Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists.

Therefore, I have returned the page to the January 19, 2009 version, before any of you started editing the page. If you want the page unprotected, you should demonstrate that nobody is going to continue reverting. If I unprotect it now, you will undo his edits, and then he will revert you, which will just get the two of you blocked. No matter how justified you feel you are, continual reverting without discussion will get you blocked from the site. If any changes to the page have consensus, you can use {{editprotected}} to request that an admin edit the page. As for Debresser's objection to Kbdank71's citation of the convention, it just seems to demonstrate his objection to the language of the convention, not his objection to the editor that wrote the language. I don't doubt that he dislikes you, I just doubt that he would continue to engage with you on the page if he agreed with or didn't care about the wording.

To Doug: I would rather try to channel the users in question into dispute resolution than block them. To quote the protection policy:

On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus. Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others.

If you think this qualifies as "persistent edit warring by particular users", then you would be correct, but the page in question is not edited that often, and I feel it would be more productive to force them to discuss their edits. If they were edit-warring in other locations as well, then blocks would be in order, but this dispute is primarily based around differences on what should be in this naming convention, and they do not seem to be persistent edit-warriors. William Allen Simpson has only been blocked twice in three years, and Debresser has only been blocked once, for an unrelated incident. I am still hoping that their dispute can be resolved, either between the two of them or by consensus involving other editors on the talk page.--Aervanath (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

(copied from above) That was an unorthodox revert. Perhaps you were looking for this version? Debresser (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm....no. Why would I want to use a version from 2006? The version I reverted to was unedited for 4 months, and was the version existing before any of you got involved on that page.--Aervanath (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you have a good look at that link and the following edit, which is mentioned in the present discussion? I am not saying that you should revert to a version of 2006. I am explaining to you why I was surprised by your decision to use that version as the "clear point" predating any contentious edits. Debresser (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The main reasons I used that version were that a) it was the most recent stable version (unedited for 4 months), and b) the first editor to break that 4 month spell was William Allen Simpson, one of the parties of this dispute. At the time, I assumed that it was his first edit to the page, but it doesn't really make a difference. The important thing is that the version where it now stands is one which I can reasonably assume had consensus as of a month ago. Once this dispute has concluded, either through consensus being reached or somebody getting blocked, the page will be unprotected and editors can continue to edit it as seems reasonable.--Aervanath (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday (predating your block and, frankly, not even dreaming about one), I wrote a long historical overview, aiming to show that that edit was made without consensus as well. Nevertheless I understand your point, and although I consider it to be - in the final account - incorrect, I will not contest your decision. Debresser (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I certainly hope that my decision will NOT be the "final acccount" though; that should be a consensus version worked out on the convention talk page. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this action and was considering doing so myself. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to know what this edit is supposed to mean? I sincerely have no idea, other than that it is not a complement to me. Please also note the edit summary. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:William_Allen_Simpson. I am sick and tired of his attacks, accusations, lies and off-topic remarks. Not to mention these ununderstandable allusions. Debresser (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

As I predicted in this diff, WAS is not participating in the discussion. I find it hard to see that fact in a constructive light. In fact, I am rather inclined to view this as a minor obstruction of the discussion and consensus forming. In view of this editor's previous actions, my psychological guts tell me this is his style. I am sure WAS will be able to find various good reasons and explanations. I think you should consider reverting to the last version I edited, and have no doubt we will see him soon enough after that. Debresser (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at the continued insults and lies of WAS on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. Debresser (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've checked WT:CFD, and I don't see what you're referring to. I've also checked WT:NCCAT, and he seems to have posted today, so hopefully this is the beginning of some sort of dispute resolution.--Aervanath (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course he posted. He is watching this page. I wrote you here with the simgle purpose of forcing him to post. You may check his posts: a sad story. Debresser (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

James Stewart requested move

Hi there. Since you seem to be a fairly experienced closer of requested moves, and I'm not, I'd like your advice on one. There is a move request at Talk:James Stewart that has been around for only a couple days but consensus is already pretty strong. Would it be proper for me to close it early? Also, if it matters, the move request is malformed, so the bot isn't listing it at WP:RM... but if it's going to be closed shortly anyway, I see no reason to bother fixing it. Thanks in advance for any advice you may have. -kotra (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Aervanath, this move request needs to be listed and the clock needs to start then. Until a couple of hours ago when I added a few notices, this move was not even announced on any of the talk pages of the other uses of James Stewart. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've fixed the move request and added the necessary templates where they needed to be, so the bot should list it properly soon. Kotra, I'd recommend reviewing the instructions at WP:RM, since they've been updated recently to make it easier for the bot, and so they're different than what you were used to. For example, {{Move}} is now subst'ed, and it goes under the Requested Move section header on the talk page, not the top of the talk page, which is what we used to do.

As far as closing the discussion, I'd say that Born2cycle has a point that closing the discussion early isn't necessary. The wider consensus on Wikipedia is recently trending towards erring on the side of closing discussions later rather than earlier, to allow editors who log on relatively infrequently more opportunities to weigh in. So if I were you, I'd let the discussion continue for the "statutory" 7 days. Not that there's an ironclad rule on this, by any means, since there's not even a requirement that moves be listed at WP:RM at all, but it raises less fuss this way. <joke>Also, it means Born2cycle won't flame your talk page. *grin*</joke> --Aervanath (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I did know about the {{move}} being substed and going under the section header, but I wasn't the one that added the template; I just fixed a typo. In any case, I will review the instructions again to see if anything has changed since last I looked. Thanks also for your input on closing; I won't close it before the 7 days (starting since you fixed the move request), unless consensus becomes unanimous. -kotra (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, even then I would avoid closing it early. While WP:SNOW has been a somewhat accepted practice in the past, my impression is that it is getting to be more and more frowned upon as time goes on. So even if consensus seems unanimous, you might as well leave it open until the end, unless there are blatant policy violations at stake (which there aren't here). Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, noted. -kotra (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Munchy, munchy... :) --Aervanath (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force#Merge and delete

I saw your clarification on closure of this one. It is an irritating problem because the amount of content being replicated is so minor and public, like: "Malta has an embassy in Stockholm, and Sweden has an embassy in Valletta". Hard to see much copyright concern, but still... The difficulty is that in many cases the information from the "X-Y relations" stub was copied to an article on "Foreign relations of X" some time before "X-Y relations" was nominated for deletion. The idea is that "Foreign relations of X" gives an overview of all the country X relations, pointing to sub-articles with more detail where they exist. The overview gives basic information from the header of each sub-article, which is fairly standard when an overview-type article has a section with a {{main|article Y}} entry. This must have come up before - what happens when the sub-article is deleted? Argghh! Aymatth2 (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It can be a problem. If there is a clear entry in the history, such as "Information merged from sub-article X", then hopefully someone in the discussion will pipe up and mention the copyright issue. However, I can certainly conceive of the case (and I'm sure it's happened), where the content from the sub-article is just copied and pasted with no attribution. In those cases, it's much harder to track. If, as in most of the X-Y relations stubs, the information was trivial, then this isn't a problem, since mere facts are not copyrightable under U.S. law. However, there is a sizable contingent of editors who feel that most of the stubs are not trivial, and that's what led to the controversy and subsequent discussion.

To answer your more general question, usually, when a sub-article is deleted, it is not actually deleted, just redirected to the main article. For example, non-notable songs are routinely redirected to the article about the musical album containing them, and likewise non-notable albums are redirected to their artists, non-notable band members are redirected to the article on their band, etc. The bilateral relations articles are a particular exception to this rule, because of the sizable contingent of editors on the other side who felt that all of them were worthless. So, we have this compromise. Usually, !votes for "merge and delete" on deletion discussions are treated as "redirect" !votes (see WP:Merge and delete). However, in this case, !votes in bilateral relations AfDs for "merge and delete" will be treated as "move history to subpage of talk page" with no redirect.

I hope that clarifies things, although I think I may have confused myself at this point. :) Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am firmly in the middle on this debate: don't see much harm in the trivial stubs, but don't see much reason to keep them. By merging the clearly trivial ones into the "Foreign relations" articles, I think the problem is solved: the stubs go away, but any editor who feels inspired to expand one into a real article can go ahead without hitting the "you are trying to recreate a deleted article" warning. And the pointless AfD arguments die away. But this merge job is turning out much larger than I predicted - there are literally thousands of stubs. I may give it a break for a while.

I have not - and now realize I should have - been noting that content was merged from the stub articles. So I have been breaking the chain from the "Foreign relations of" article back to the original contributor of the content - and breaking the rules. Oops! Maybe not a copyright violation since the merged content is "mere facts", but still, not correct. To solve it, which I think works, see Revision history of Foreign relations of Hungary, which gives a pointer to Talk:Foreign relations of Hungary#Merged content, listing all the source articles. That restores the chain back to the original stub creator - unless the stub (now a redirect) is deleted. Why anyone would want to delete a redirect like this is beyond me, but it will probably happen. Thanks for your sane feedback on a slightly insane subject. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. ;)--Aervanath (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Arcturus

Hi Aervanath. Many thanks for carrying out the deletion as requested, and thanks for the advice and welcome. Regards, Arcturus (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Again, welcome back. :) --Aervanath (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of Nothomyrmecia is based on false information

The correct name for this ant and for the relative stub, i.e. Prionomyrmex, is currently given by another editor as ‘now officially rejected’ without source of the pretended rejection. This editor repeatedly and arbitrarily changed the name Prionomyrmex to Nothomyrmecia and justified his action by a long reference list claimed to support his attitude ‘until proof of the contrary’. No one of the papers given as disagreeing with previous citations of Baroni Urbani’s (2005, 2008) arguments to use Prionomyrmex discusses these arguments or refers to them. The 2008 paper, particularly significant in this context, is never cited and the 2005 one is mentioned but not discussed in one reference only. Personal opinions unsupported by scientific evidence cannot be used as arguments. Until a factual criticism to Baroni Urbani’s reasons will be published, Prionomyrmex remains the sole available name. <Baroni Urbani C. 2005. Phylogeny and biogeography of the ant subfamily Prionomyrmecinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Ann. Mus. civ. St. Nat. ‘G. Doria’, Genoa 96: 581-595><Baroni Urbani C. 2008. Orthotaxonomy and parataxonomy of true and presumed bulldog ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Doriana 8, N. 358: 1-10>Sirolo (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This actually should have been placed at Talk:Nothomyrmecia_macrops#Requested_move, not on my talk page. I have posted it there on your behalf, where the discussion should now occur. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

SPI User:Piriczki

Just added another - User:Piriczski. Trevvvy (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

• News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more
• Wikipedia in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Wikipedia, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Another sock of User:Piriczki

I wish to reopen the investigation. I just noticed this edit by Piriczki:

• [1]

restored identical edits by User:JimmyRRpage

• [2]
• [3]

User:Piriczki and User:JimmyRRpage both edited within the same section in the Dazed and Confused article:

• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]. Trevvvy (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration in closing this case. Regarding the above comments by User:Trevvvy, I declare unequivocally that I am not User:JimmyRRPage nor do I have any association with that user, whose edit history pre-dates mine by a year by the way. Further, I firmly believe this accusation was made in bad faith by a blocked user who is retaliating against other editors who have corrected her inaccurate or inflated contributions to articles related to the rock band Led Zeppelin.

This accusation appears to have been prompted by my recent edit to the article James Patrick Page: Session Man Volume One which corrected false information first introduced by User:MegX. At this point, some background information may be helpful. This user's obsession with Led Zeppelin extends to the point of removing from wikipedia any information which might reflect unfavorably toward the group. It also manifested itself in an absurd campaign to eliminate all references to Jake Holmes, a folk singer who originally wrote and recorded the song "Dazed and Confused", later popularized by Led Zeppelin without credit to Holmes. Led Zeppelin had been criticized for borrowing from other artists' work without giving credit, hence the animosity toward Holmes. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"The Above Ground Sound" of Jake Holmes for an example.

User:MegX first erroneously removed Jake Holmes from the article in question with this edit [8]. That edit was first corrected by User:216.65.144.24 here [9] only to be immediately reverted [10] by MegX. The article was subsequently corrected again [11] by User:JimmyRRPage. Later, new user Cradleofrock again removed Jake Holmes [12] which was reverted by me [13]. I also added a reference. User:Trevvvy then responds with a false accusation of sockpuppetry.

You may wish to simply ignore User:Trevvvy which is entirely appropriate. But just in case this new user's behavior should continue, I have alerted two administrators who are probably familiar with this user's history. Piriczki (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Both of you are raising serious allegations. I would advise both of you to follow the instructions at WP:SPI to request checkusers on each other, so we can figure out exactly who is socking where. If you don't I will be doing that in the near future, so we can get to the bottom of this as quickly as possible, so this won't continue.--Aervanath (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I am not prejudging either of you, as I have not had time to investigate the full history of either Trevvy's new allegations against Piriczki, nor Piriczki's allegations against Trevvy. I am withholding judgment until I see some CheckUser evidence. I request both of you to act with civility and restraint during this process.--Aervanath (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have filed the requests for CheckUser on both of you. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Leanne and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Piriczki.--Aervanath (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Artyline (talk · contribs), clearly a sock of JamesBurns. 217.228.64.74 (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User:217.228.64.74 = User:HexaChord, a banned sockpuppeteer, and tagged as such. Trevvvy (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence for that.--Aervanath (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerking

Hello Aervanath, and welcome to the clerk team. Anyways, when endorsing a case instead of using {{clerknote}} you can use {{Endorse}}, that will leave a more accurate template. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks.--Aervanath (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Theodore Kowal restoration

Hello. Thanks for restoring Theodore Kowal to User:Frei Hans/Theodore Kowal. I moved the restored article back to Theodore Kowal thinking that whoever had been working on it would be able to make some improvements - but it was deleted again within the hour. Could you restore it again, maybe to the user page of the person who originally created it. Thanks again. Frei Hans (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I hope I don't come across as tactless here, but if you weren't going to work on it, why did you request its undeletion? Seeing as all you did was move it back to the article space with no changes, I'm not going to consider further userfication unless I see someone actually intending to work on it; otherwise it just wastes everybody's time. Sorry, --Aervanath (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. In answer to your question, I requested the article's restoration because I happened to see the discussion for its deletion and the case for its deletion seemed questionable to me. I am a relatively new user. Perhaps I should have made it clear that I did not create the article myself, and perhaps the article would have best been restored to the original creator's user page. I never realised the article would be so speedily re-deleted. Incidentally, the article was tagged for speedy re-deletion by a user who seems to make a habit of deleting and reverting content and I think this displays editorial bias on that user's part. Please consider restoring the article to the original creator's page - if the creator is passionate about the article I expect they will work on it to address concerns raised in the original deletion discussion. If the original creator shows no interest I suspect our speedy deletionists will waste no time in nominating the page for deletion again. A small action to restore an article could mean everything to an editor who may have lost hope in the article or been discouraged through an unfair article for deletion discussion. Regards, Frei Hans (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Frei Hans, if that editor would express an intent to work on the article, that would be great. But so far, they haven't, and until that editor or someone else does, its not worth my time. Sorry, --Aervanath (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review talk

As per this I am going to discuss the deletion of the Category:Black rock musicians with you. You deiced it was to be deleted during the discussion of it's deletion. Can you please re-read the discussion, especially mine and Loadmaster reasons for keep. And then tell me why on earth delete this very important category please? Thank you. --Sugarcubez (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have re-read the discussion, and I still don't see why it's a "very important category". Consensus at CFD has consistently been that categories based purely on skin color aren't suitable. Loadmaster's argument was the antithesis of that. Your argument seemed to be that we needed a category for Afro-punk musicians. However, that wasn't what the category was about. If you want to create Category:Afro-punk musicians, then it will probably not be deleted, because Afro-punk is a clearly-defined musical subculture. Trying to lump all dark-skinned musicians into one category, no matter what culture they are a part of, will simply not fly on Wikipedia. I hope this clarifies things. --Aervanath (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

9/11 redirects

All of these redirects are on my watchlist since I fixed them all when I moved the article last year following a requested move. so I noticed the deletions and followed in back to the RFD. Clearly the decision there was delete all 15 but for Pentagon bombings. I see nothing in that discussion referring to deleting all redirects. The nominator listed 15, said that specific subset was redundant, and people voted to "delete all" but for pentagon bombings. That discussion appears thus to be limited to the 15; when people said "delete all" they appear to be referring to the 15 listed and not to all redirects to September 11 attacks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, my apologies. I erred in the deletion of too many redirects, due to a mistake I made with a deletion script I was using. I am already in the process of restoring the ones that were improperly deleted, and I hope you will forgive my mistake. Regards, --Aervanath (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

:-) Glad to hear it. I assumed you were working on deleting them all and had interpreted the "delete all" as to all 125! Glad I was mistaken and of course, nothing to forgive. Even if it's messing up, that deletion script sounds intriguing. It is listed anywhere?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It is User:Splarka/ajaxbatchdelete.js. But, as I've just learned the hard way, be CAREFUL with it! :) (Especially the checkbox that says "delete all redirects".) --Aervanath (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, it has no talk page instruction. A lot of these monobook scripts are finicky (and for some reason sometimes when I add a new one, it breaks my other scripts):-( --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the same thing happens to me sometimes. I have half of my monobook.js file commented out until I have time to play around with the various combinations and figure out what works and what doesn't. Anyway, I've undone all the deletions now. Let me know if I missed any. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Bagram Air Base / Airfield

I'm a bit disappointed at your decision to not move the article. There was considerable support across the talk page that pushes the fact that the installation's name and most common usage was Bagram Airfield. Both names are common, both are used -- but one is correct. The other is not. The one being used on Wikipedia is inaccurate when looking at the whole: Airfields are Army, Air bases are Air Force. If this installation was owned and operated by the USAF then there would be no problem.. but it isn't. It is owned by the Army. We are just alloted a flightline and some facilities around it. It is very much an Army installation past that.

I'm concerned as I thought Wikipedia was about accurate information, not the most common misconceptions about information. -JE (Let's talk) (My contribs) 19:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about "verifiability, not truth". No one has disagreed that the Army and Air Force have their own naming conventions, and within the U.S. military and at the Air Base/Airfield itself, those should obviously be followed. But Wikipedia has its own naming conventions, which override all outside conventions when determining what the title of the article should be. Both names are verifiable, and Air Base seems to be the most commonly used of the two. If you would like to change Wikipedia policy in this regard, then I suggest you post to WT:Naming conventions and try to convince other editors of your case. Regards, --Aervanath (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

So, even though there was more support than opposition to moving the article we still will see it under a name used due to common misconception because it can be easily explained out of policy on Wikipedia? I'm all for following policies but when there is something blatantly wrong with the name and many people have pointed out evidence of it being a different name we'll still continue to use the wrong name? If I was to add information the article I wouldn't write "Bagram Air Base" as that is wrong. This makes me thing someone would leave after reading the article with "What is the real name?" Continuing the mistake. I even note another administrator found information to support a move. -JE (Let's talk) (My contribs) 07:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many things which have more than one "real name". That's not really a crucial issue. The issue is what name the topic is most commonly known by. There wasn't enough of a case made that Airfield is more commonly used in a global sense than Air Base; there is more to the world than the U.S. military, and Wikipedia's naming conventions are meant to reflect a global scope, not a proprietary one.--Aervanath (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger edit summaries, best practice

Hi. I am contacting you because you closed WT:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force#Merge and delete and answered Aymatth2's questions related to that discussion. I have started a discussion on formalizing merger edit summaries at Help talk:Merging#Edit summaries, best practice. You know the background, and I thought you might be interested. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have much to add to that discussion, although I thank you for letting me know. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

1990 People's Republic of China airliner collision

I moved 1990 People's Republic of China airliner collision back to its proper name. See, people on two airliners died, so we use a common name instead of one flight number. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see your point. However, I think the name should be more precise. How about Guangzhou Baiyun airliner collision?--Aervanath (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Or Guangzhou Baiyun airport disaster? Compare Tenerife airport disaster. I think there should be some standardization among the different article names, don't you?--Aervanath (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Tenerife is used as an example of a popular name in the naming guidelines here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Accident_article_naming_conventions - To my knowledge the Guangzhou crash doesn't have a popular name. I think a better equivalent for a rename would be Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937 & DHL Flight 611 mid-air collision WhisperToMe (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it probably doesn't have a popular name. However, Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937 & DHL Flight 611 mid-air collision is such an awkward title that it makes me want to move that article as well! I'll file a requested move on Talk:1990 People's Republic of China airliner collision, so we can get more input on this, since I don't think the two of us are going to agree here. :)--Aervanath (talk) 06:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/External news sites

You deleated September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/External news sites with the edit summery "Deleted because "Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_20#September_11_attacks". using TW" in violation of Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for not deleting, with sates "[Boldness mine][O]ld subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them.".

I stated that in the redirect discussion, but maybe you missed it, my post was long. I hope, but am not sure if I am doing the right thing by posting this, if I am not please tell me.

The reason I post this is because you're deletion seems to be a pretty big violation of the part of the guideline I mentioned, and all of the delete "votes", for lack of a better term, were made before I made pointed the guideline out, and do not explain what makes the redirect different enough from the other subpage redirects to make the guideline not apply.

Again, I hope, but am not sure if I am doing the right thing by posting this, if I am not please tell me.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have restored it.--Aervanath (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And, since you seem so concerned about it, I am telling you: You are doing the right thing! :) Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason I was as, you put it "so concerned about it" is it is probably normally a bad thing to go complain to the deleting administrator when you lose a deletion discussion, using reasons you already mentioned in the deletion discussion. I thought this case more likely then not warranted an exception. I'm glad to see I acted appropriately, but if I had not you would have told me, I would have learned, and it would have not been a big deal.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It is never a bad idea to politely approach an administrator about his/her closure of a discussion, as you did with me here. You will always get far more mileage out of a polite and non-confrontational request for reconsideration. In fact, administrator candidates are usually evaluated at WP:RFA on how approachable and civil they are. However, it is accepted that administrators aren't perfect. It is always possible for an administrator to err in their evaluation of a discussion. This isn't the first time I've done so, nor will it be the last, but I do the best I can. In this case, you'll notice that I kept one subpage but deleted the other, because I didn't notice that there were actually two subpages involved; I kept the one that you explicitly pointed out, but deleted the other because I didn't see clearly that it was a subpage, and therefore subject to the same logic.--Aervanath (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If what you just said is not in a policy, guideline, or essay, I suggest you make what you said here into an essay.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is buried in the administrator policy. See Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_conduct. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

WAS

I have WAS talkpage watched, since I post there sometimes. Although he refuses to discuss with me. Which is not helping consensus forming. Anyways, I saw a few things that connect to what we talked about before in a now archived section.

[14] which I mentioned in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_30#Category:Slavic_countries. And [15], [16], and [17]. Since when do we have such a rule "no references, no category"? I wrote him about this here. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have notified him that removing categories that are under discussion at CFD is considered bad form. I have also questioned him about emptying the surname categories. We shall see how he responds.--Aervanath (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the surname categories, he is actually emptying those per a CFD, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_6#Category:Surnames_by_country. Although those categories weren't specifically included in the CFD, the same logic applies.--Aervanath (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that, because "Native American surnames" is a cultural/ethnical group of surnames, as opposed to surnames by country/language. So that was not included in the original Cfd. But the most worring to me was the rational "no references, no category". Debresser (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I did question him about that, but I haven't seen a response from him yet.--Aervanath (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I did find Category talk:Surnames, where the "no references, no category" idea seems to be gaining some support.--Aervanath (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Apart from WAS being all over the place, and a not unambiguous reply to him, I am not sure what you are referring to. I posted there now myself (thank you for referring me to this discussion). Debresser (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Following up, "This edit" worked after a shorter stall today (I'm using the secure server, and plain links seem to be having problems lately). The edit summary is in fact "remove parent category". Thus, it should have been obvious to anybody, other than those pedants trying to score points with you (or against me).

4. I'm flabbergasted, but the requirement that unsupported categories be removed immediately was deleted from the main Wikipedia:Categorization in May, without discussion anywhere, by a certain user Debresser. The same user that tried to remove explicit requirements from other policy and guidelines without discussion – where I was blocked recently (even though carefully following the 3RR requirements as written) while defending against the unwarranted removal there.

--William Allen Simpson (talk)

I am surprised also. Let's see the diff. Debresser (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I do seem to remember something. It had to do precisely with the existence of these 2 templates. Debresser (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Err...what two template? And it would be nice if you could provide a link to the "something" you remember. ;) --Aervanath (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The two templates WAS recommended for Tfd here. If can't find the diff of this "something". If I could, I'd have said so right away. Debresser (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Note the "incivility". Even another editor has commented on it. Debresser (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

William is perfectly within his rights to nominate the templates for deletion, as he doesn't agree with them. That's fine. I also note that the TfDs are going unanimously against him, which is an indication that the community doesn't agree with his stance on this. This is also fine. The incivility is not fine, but I don't find that the incivility rises to the level where any intervention by me is necessary. I would also ask that from now on, you not be the one to initially point out his incivility. Your opinion of him is quite clear, and when you consistently reply to all his comments in a personal way (even when you're not mentioning his name directly, saying "the last editor" is still a clear reference), it puts him more on the defensive. As before, I'll caution you to engage him as little as possible. Refute his arguments without even mentioning the person behind them. (Also, when posting on talk pages, please leave the "/* WAS */" subheading in the edit summary, so it makes it clear which section you've posted in. Makes it much easier for me and other editors.)--Aervanath (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In short. # Of course he is within his rights. # I am happy the community disagrees with him, because I believe his point of view is incorrect. Not because of anything personal. # The incivility was pointed out not by me, but by TJRC. # Replying to his edits without mentioning him is nearly impossible, especially in view of the fact that he often makes ludicrous statements. # He seems to be stalking me. This is already the second case where he is doing something radical on a template I recently edited substantively. I am not the suspicious type, but some other editor has already expressed his suspection that WAS is stalking me (in a private email) after another edit of his. Debresser (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)